This thread has gone COMPLETELY off-topic, it was never supposed to be an argument about whether or not a higher being exists.

However, tossing that aside, I'll join the current discussion...

Alex, I am well versed with the bible, I studied it from age 5 to 18.

How THE FUCK does being well-versed with the bible influence one's belief in God? To call an athiest's arguments unsubstantial purely because they are not versed with the bible is ridiculous.

I haven't read the Qur'an, yet I don't believe in Allah, and I deny that he exists. I'm sure you would deny that he exists too. Have you read the Qur'an yet? I've never read Hindu scriptures, yet I don't believe in Vishnu or Krishna. Do you? Have you read Hindu scriptures?

My disbelief in God, or ANY higher being, is based on what I observe in the world around me, as a rational, thinking being. As pkc so aptly put it, I don't need to eat a shit sandwich to know it tastes like shit, I can observe that with my own reasoning and deductional skills, rather than reading a 2000 year old book which tells me that the sandwich tastes the way it does.

You are making the mistake of believing that all Athiests are either

a) Well versed with the bible and refute it.

b) Are not well versed with the bible and are using unbased arguments.

I, on the other hand, am very well versed with the book, but I do not even consider it when forming the views and opinions I have on God and higher beings.

quote:

Originally posted by Beat Blog This thread has gone COMPLETELY off-topic, it was never supposed to be an argument about whether or not a higher being exists. However, tossing that aside, I'll join the current discussion... Alex, I am well versed with the bible, I studied it from age 5 to 18. How THE FUCK does being well-versed with the bible influence one's belief in God? To call an athiest's arguments unsubstantial purely because they are not versed with the bible is ridiculous. I haven't read the Qur'an, yet I don't believe in Allah, and I deny that he exists. I'm sure you would deny that he exists too. Have you read the Qur'an yet? I've never read Hindu scriptures, yet I don't believe in Vishnu or Krishna. Do you? Have you read Hindu scriptures? My disbelief in God, or ANY higher being, is based on what I observe in the world around me, as a rational, thinking being. As pkc so aptly put it, I don't need to eat a shit sandwich to know it tastes like shit, I can observe that with my own reasoning and deductional skills, rather than reading a 2000 year old book which tells me that the sandwich tastes the way it does. You are making the mistake of believing that all Athiests are either a) Well versed with the bible and refute it. b) Are not well versed with the bible and are using unbased arguments. I, on the other hand, am very well versed with the book, but I do not even consider it when forming the views and opinions I have on God and higher beings.

yeah, its like saying you need to have read lord of the rings to have an opinion on the existence of elves.

___________________

Alright pkr, I have some work to do as well, and this is also becoming more prolonged than I would have hoped.

So while I don't mean to a drive-by, 'post n' run,' I'm afraid it will more or less come down to this (but I fully intend to read your reply).

Anyway, here's a response to some of your remarks:

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN the contradictory nature of the bible. for any "rule" or "truth" littered throughout its pages, you can find another rule or truth saying the exact opposite. the fact that there are many downright dehumanistic components of the bible makes me doubt the veracity of the document as the word of a higher being. the bible's hangups on sexual activities alone shows that it is the word of man, and not of a deity.

I think the most significant element involved here (and this relates to my question of 'methodology,' as you remarked upon later) is a proper understanding of historical context (and perhaps context in general). The Bible is undoubtedly trans-temporal, but there is much within it that needs to be understood relative to the context of culture and history.

Without this understanding, you're likely to walk away with the type of impression you outlined above.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN firstly, the bible means whatever anyone wants it to mean. i dont need to spell out the problems inherent here.

I don't think that's quite accurate. Some place a great emphasis upon personal interpretation and personal meaning derived from Biblical passages, but I don't think any theologian will accept the legitimacy of any Biblical interpretation, as I believe there are guidelines involved when doing this.

There may also be things that everyone understands the same, but have differing understandings as to its personal meaning (though I'm not qualified to say).

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN thirdly, why would a god expect thorough and exhaustive study of his word before enlightenment is achieved? what about all the poor humans whose intellectual capacity was less than what is required to adequately "understand" the bible? why is it ok for some of his chosen to miss out on the deeper meaning(s)?

I would argue that is precisely in the struggle for understanding and meaning that one attains a sense of meaningfulness, and the effort exerted in trying to attain a deep level of meaning is as important as the attainment of meaning itself Some would argue that that with every religious text, there are different levels by which you would read it, and whatever your capabilities are in doing so is right for you.

I would say the extent by which you are able to understand it relative to someone else is insignificant relative to the idea of searching for meaning, via whatever capacity you have to do so.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN im not quite sure what you mean here. what kind of methodologies do you use when watching a movie? or reading a novel? i will admit that i never read the bible with the view of writing a dissertation on the topic, and my problematic efforts at reading it where as an adolescent so my memory aint the best.

This relates to the points I made earlier. There are different ways to go about approaching the Bible. Some people do so in a purely literal sense, others in a purely metaphorical or allegorical sense, and others a combination of both. Some people understand passages relative to their historical context, and others don't.

In other words how you read it will dramatically affect what type of sentiments or impressions you walk away with.

The types of arguments you've advanced above reflect very common criticisms I've come across, and I am most confident as to there being a plethora of material and scholarly works that address them far better than I ever could.

quote:

Originally posted by Beat Blog I haven't read the Qur'an, yet I don't believe in Allah, and I deny that he exists.

A common misunderstanding is that 'Allah' is understood by Muslims to be some other deity, when actually, it is simply the Arabic word for God.

Arab Christians, for example, use the word 'Allah' for this same reason.

So while this doesn't change your opinion that God does not exist, it's incorrect to approach Islam as submission to anything other than God, the Divine.

Joseph Campbell - Religion and Mythology

I've always viewed religion as an adult's nightlight. Nightlights are there to provide a sense of security by lighting up the darkness which is what frightens kids as it's an intangible fright. Death and creation are the ultimate intangibles, and religions act as a nightlight to provide a sense of security and meaning to them. imoimoimo

quote:

Originally posted by Paradox Lost Alright pkr, I have some work to do as well, and this is also becoming more prolonged than I would have hoped.

well, i blame you!!

quote:

Originally posted by Paradox Lost I think the most significant element involved here (and this relates to my question of 'methodology,' as you remarked upon later) is a proper understanding of historical context (and perhaps context in general). The Bible is undoubtedly trans-temporal, but there is much within it that needs to be understood relative to the context of culture and history. Without this understanding, you're likely to walk away with the type of impression you outlined above.

very true. but i would contend that the word of the ever-lasting, all-knowing, infallible god wouldn't (or shouldn't) need context. how are we meant to determine what is a casualty of "context" and what god really means/wants?

quote:

Originally posted by Paradox Lost I don't think that's quite accurate. Some place a great emphasis upon personal interpretation and personal meaning derived from Biblical passages, but I don't think any theologian will accept the legitimacy of any Biblical interpretation, as I believe there are guidelines involved when doing this.

what i meant was, that people can find whatever they themselves are looking for within the pages of the good book(s). the holy books are pretty good at having people show their true colours. a racist sexist vengeful bastard can find a littany of supporting "evidence" to substantiate their beliefs, as can a kind and forgiving person. in my opinion a theologian's opinion is rather irrelevant, because they too are nothing more than a fellow "interpreter". do they have a deeper understanding of the bible than me? possibly. but also possibly not. being able to quote scripture at length doesn't mean they are any more correct than i am. there is no "yard stick" with which to measure religious belief. logic might tell us that someone who has studied the bible might know more about it than someone who has not, yet experience tells us that this isn't always the case (look at any crazy US evangelical bastard, for whom i think jesus' word is as foreign as another language).

quote:

Originally posted by Paradox Lost There may also be things that everyone understands the same, but have differing understandings as to its personal meaning (though I'm not qualified to say).

who says you are not qualified?

quote:

Originally posted by Paradox Lost I would argue that is precisely in the struggle for understanding and meaning that one attains a sense of meaningfulness, and the effort exerted in trying to attain a deep level of meaning is as important as the attainment of meaning itself Some would argue that that with every religious text, there are different levels by which you would read it, and whatever your capabilities are in doing so is right for you. I would say the extent by which you are able to understand it relative to someone else is insignificant relative to the idea of searching for meaning, via whatever capacity you have to do so.

yes, both very good points. but then, i always took the bible as a "guide" for humans (and i think there's a fair body of the bible that acts as exactly that) and its pretty hard to guide someone when they don't understand the signs

quote:

Originally posted by Paradox Lost This relates to the points I made earlier. There are different ways to go about approaching the Bible. Some people do so in a purely literal sense, others in a purely metaphorical or allegorical sense, and others a combination of both. Some people understand passages relative to their historical context, and others don't. In other words how you read it will dramatically affect what type of sentiments or impressions you walk away with.

the problem though is that whether you read it literally or allegorically is purely up to the reader. they can basically read into any part whatever they wish. as beat blog i think mentioned elsewhere, the bible only became allegorical to people once science started to peel back the ignorance, and i for one don't have a lot of faith in a deity that let's his word be used (often punitively) incorrectly for thousands of years, or have lies and misconceptions passed off as his word for the same time period. correct me if im wrong, but jehovah has gone to pretty extreme lengths in the past to make sure his word/will was paid attention to

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Paradox Lost it is simply the Arabic word for God.

Correct, it is the word for "God".

However, as Islam teaches that there is only one God, it makes no sense for Muslims to be calling their deity anything but.

The Muslim God is a different being to the Christian God.

However, it's a moot point, because I don't believe in any Gods, except myself of course. Now bow down to your master!

quote:

Originally posted by Beat Blog Correct, it is the word for "God". However, as Islam teaches that there is only one God, it makes no sense for Muslims to be calling their deity anything but.

And they do. I'm not sure if I'm misunderstanding your post, but all Muslims refer to the One God, regardless as to whether they say it in English or in Arabic.

quote:

Originally posted by Beat Blog The Muslim God is a different being to the Christian God.

Are you saying that God in Christianity is different than God in Islam? Some Christians would say so, but most Muslims believe that it was the same God who revealed the same message of Divine Oneness to Prophets and Messengers throughout history. However, their message became corrupted over time, with Islam being the final revelation, and the restoration of pure, Abrahamic monotheism.

It's worth mentioning that there are Muslim adherents (not sure how many) to the Perennial Philosophy (notably Islamic scholar Seyyed Hossein Nasr), who believe that the differences in various religious traditions are the result of Divine Will, and were intended to be the way they are.

Okay, now I'm out.

It's been a stimulating discussion.

quote:

Originally posted by Beat Blog This thread has gone COMPLETELY off-topic, it was never supposed to be an argument about whether or not a higher being exists. However, tossing that aside, I'll join the current discussion... Alex, I am well versed with the bible, I studied it from age 5 to 18. How THE FUCK does being well-versed with the bible influence one's belief in God? To call an athiest's arguments unsubstantial purely because they are not versed with the bible is ridiculous. I haven't read the Qur'an, yet I don't believe in Allah, and I deny that he exists. I'm sure you would deny that he exists too. Have you read the Qur'an yet? I've never read Hindu scriptures, yet I don't believe in Vishnu or Krishna. Do you? Have you read Hindu scriptures? My disbelief in God, or ANY higher being, is based on what I observe in the world around me, as a rational, thinking being. As pkc so aptly put it, I don't need to eat a shit sandwich to know it tastes like shit, I can observe that with my own reasoning and deductional skills, rather than reading a 2000 year old book which tells me that the sandwich tastes the way it does. You are making the mistake of believing that all Athiests are either a) Well versed with the bible and refute it. b) Are not well versed with the bible and are using unbased arguments. I, on the other hand, am very well versed with the book, but I do not even consider it when forming the views and opinions I have on God and higher beings.

Read my posts, it's not just about being well versed in the Bible, it's about being well versed in the entire subject.

You're dense if you think I've formed my entire opinion on the subject on the basis of reading 1 book, I've recommended 4 authors in this thread alone.